User talk:BigK HeX/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Thanks for helping educate the IP editor at Federal Reserve System

Thank you for weighing in at Talk:Federal_Reserve_System#Printing_Money_addition_by_User:96.237.134.44_.2F_User:96.237.131.111. You made some good points. If I understood the issues better (I came to the article doing WP:NCP), I would have tried to point the editor to a better potential article for the criticism to be noted (as you did). I'm afraid the editor lacks the experience editing to create an appropriate sentence or two, which is all the weight it is worth. He has been trying hard not to listen to explanations of how things work. Perhaps one of us could be proactive and create a brief note of the criticism to add somewhere (but not to Federal Reserve System)? Thanks again, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It looked like the editor there was making a case for an issue that didn't look very WP:TOPIC for the Fed article. I suggested the alternative article because it looked like he's hashing a criticism from a century ago; unfortunately, I'm not well-versed on that criticism, so I probably wouldn't be able to write very well upon the topic. A cursory look at the arguments prompted a concern that the editor (unintentionally) might have been passing off a criticism that was significant in it's day as a viewpoint that had just as much notable significance today. If the debate gets extensive, I'll scrutinize the arguments more closely, and hopefully everyone will reach a satisfactory resolution. BigK HeX (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert P. Murphy's Refutation of Krugman's Critique of ABCT

Robert P. Murphy's refutation (ref. 40 of article on Austrian Bus. Cycle) of Krugman's critique of ABCT is NOT a blog entry. It is a Featured Article at www.mises.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.50.54 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Featured article" or not, I simply could not find any references to the discussion of Murphy's theory in any peer-reviewed work ... not even the cough-cough "scholarly" journals run by the Austrians. With that being the case, it seemed a little strong to give the impression that Murphy's rebuttal was the final word on the matter. BigK HeX (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but Krugman's article in Slate was not a peer-reviewed journal article. And your "cough cough" derisive connotations of the Austrian economists shows that you are biased and you should not be editing articles that involve the theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.182.204 (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The article merely mentions Krugman's criticism. Quite a bit different from the presentation you gave of Murphy's rebuttal. Also, your advisement on what you think I should edit borders on the ridiculous, but thanks anyways. I doubt that a person who is candy-coating their bias is in a position to pass judgement, but meh.... BigK HeX (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WQA notice

Hello, BigK HeX. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —SlamDiego_←T 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

KiK notes

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticism_of_fractional-reserve_banking&action=historysubmit&diff=339091558&oldid=339081598

Response to KIK

You might find it helpful to know that I hardly need you to "break it down" to me, when discussing the banking system. I may have little inclination at this time to expand your understanding, but you shouldn't take that to mean that I lack an understanding. I didn't read very far into your post, but one sentence did catch my eye --- I'm not "puzzled" that Austrians claim that reserves might be higher under free banking, in fact, I'm well aware of that speculation. That speculation is not our main problem here. As I've mentioned before, your understanding of monetary concepts appears to be muddled, judging by the edits here. I could spend time pointing out dozens of instances, but I'll give you the courtesy of one example of what I mean. In your long post, you conflated "central banking" with the specific function of "lender of last resort function" and/or "government-sanctioned bank bailouts." The two may be related but are not the same. Allowing the muddling of all of these concepts would be a disservice to those who depend on Wikipedia, and I don't see a need to allow that. I'm not trying to hinder you ... in fact, if you weren't a banned editor, and you made relevant edits that had reflected a technical precision in language and indicated an accurate understanding of the material, I certainly would not stand in your way. BigK HeX (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent fun

If you haven't read up on Kar's history - there's a brief summary here. It's entertaining, especially to go through the talk pages of some of his socks. After all, if you can't win an argument, just invent some friends and bring them along! And then, of course, be upset that you get tossed out of the playground when you can't follow the rules. Such sheer effort at daring to silence him! Ravensfire (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! KiK's suspected sockpuppet page certainly is pretty .... err, amazing.  :) BigK HeX (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Amazing" - hopefully in a good way! My personal all-time favorite sockppt is "Mae'sFannieSmellsLikeInsolvency". That one still makes me laugh when I see it. It's still true too, and will be until Fannie Mae goes belly up. The second favorite is Pigs"r"Fed. That took ages to refine (U$"is"bankrupt, Keynesians"R"Dumb... not good enough). By the way, on a completely different topic, I support the free speech judgment of the majority in the Citizens United case this week (characterized incorrectly by the mainstream establishment media as a cynical judgment in support of rich corporations). No central authority can be trusted to know what genuine, brilliant, incisive criticism of an existing doomed cancerous corrosive established order is on the one hand, and what is simply the work of spoilt brats with no intelligent ideas who simply feel the need to self-promote and disrupt a good and noble project. Censors often convince themselves that self-preservation is noble. Censors often hate direct challenges to their authority. The works of MR are not liked, nor are the Tea Party protests going on today. It's a difficult judgment to make in such cases. But, thankfully, the WP editors (censors?) are there to "get the job done". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.47.194 (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

For such a fan of anarcho-capitalism, one would think that you'd show more respect for property rights and take trespassing more seriously --- I guess some people care about what Murray Rothbard would think only when it is convenient to them. But sadly, I'm pretty sure that no one aside from the owner has any entitlement to Wikipedia, and I believe you were informed that your presence is unwelcome on this private property -- likely, a decision that stems from your aggressive approach. Heck, to be honest, I'm probably one of the "censors" who is most sympathetic to your positions but you're doing a pretty good job of alienating even me.

Anyways, if you really must violate the terms of this community, then I've already advised that you may find more satisfaction by sticking to minor edits. If you really must do more, then at least have the awareness to realize that the bar is set rather high for you to attract positive attention; making sure that your edits are particularly well-sourced (preferably academic citations), with exceptionally precise wording, and an indisputably NPOV tone could help greatly. Even if there are a few people who won't let you post them due to the WP:BAN rule, edits like that may very well find support from non-banned Wikipedians. BigK HeX (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a very poor sense of self-perception. You are not "sympathetic" to any of my "positions". I've studied your edits and know exactly what your point of view is. You think you're editing "objectively" when in fact you betray your prejudices more deeply than me. At least I add Rowbotham and Brown to CFRB, who support positions on monetary reform I oppose. You have never once done the same. Others appear to support the view that you tend to skew your edits to fit your perspective. On the issue of property rights, I have already addressed this point with JQ here. If I was treated with slightly more respect before being banned I may have let this go, happy in the knowledge other editors would contribute appropriately. However having seen the very knowledgeable Missesus killed off, and then Skipseviet killed off without justification and then seen others with much less ability, intellect and far more bias given multiple barnstars I felt duty-bound to correct the most egregious errors at the margins. Apparently even these minor edits are too much for the Orwellian pro-statist pro-banker zealots. I'm insane enough to keep going until I get fair treatment. Even if I don't, at least I'm enjoying myself at my ideological enemies' expense. Given we're doomed with these idiots in charge of both WP and public policy, I feel no compulsion to refrain from keeping WP as free as possible from insanely zealous pro-state bias.

I've studied your edits and know exactly what your point of view is.

Hah. No doubt you've studied my edits even less thoroughly than monetary economics, and I have no doubt that your grasp of my point of view is even more tenuous. BigK HeX (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"I add ... to CFRB, [people] who support positions on monetary reform I oppose." You have never once done the same.

You have no idea what positions I "oppose" and you don't seem to know what I've contributed to the CFRB article. Your presumptuous assertion is laughable. BigK HeX (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion on the refutation of Krugman shows that I expect positions that can't be shown to have even one citation, get an appropriate weighting on Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia's guidelines. You can try to ignore WP:UNDUE all that you want since it interferes with your agenda, but you'd only be deluding yourself. BigK HeX (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm insane enough to keep going until I get fair treatment ..... I feel no compulsion to refrain from keeping WP as free as possible from insanely zealous pro-state bias

For someone that quotes Rothbard so much, you sure do exhibit an extraordinarily warped understanding of property rights. This is a PRIVATE community. We've paid NOTHING for membership. Wikipedia is under NO contractual obligation to allow the general public to edit content as their discretion. You and I have ZERO entitlement here. Your decision not to refrain from trespassing here makes YOU the gangster/parasite/aggressor⁽¹⁾ that Rothbard describes -- invading OTHER people's rightful property. So, in the ultimate irony, you are here crusading against "the State" because of their potential to abuse private citizens' "individual liberty," all while explicitly engaging in that same kind of abuse of a citizen's private property.

If even those who parrot the anarcho-capitalist rhetoric don't actually respect those ideas, I hope they don't expect observers to take those ideas seriously.... BigK HeX (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

1. "...the aggressor imposes his will over the natural property of another—he deprives the other man of his freedom of action and of the full exercise of his natural self-ownership .... The aggressor...is not a producer at all but a predator; he lives parasitically off the labor and product of others." ---Murray Rothbard

Interesting perspective. MR clearly admired Che Guevara. Che Guevara was a "killer", a "terrorist" and was himself killed by the CIA. Why would MR support someone like Che? Possibly because he was engaged in a "just" fight against an aggressor who assumed they had a god-given right to the whole world (including Latin America). Therefore some defensive action (which others INTERPRETED as aggressive) was justified against insane imperialist zealotry, at least in Che's and MR's eyes.

Similarly here, I note I have NEVER edited on a page I dislike simply to remove stuff. Climate change - not a word. Keynesian economics - not a word other than asking others to clean up what is still an appallingly amateur piece of work. Neo-classical economics - not a word. Rational expectations - not a word. You fail to note that to some degree WP now serves a public purpose (even though it is privately owned). You also fail to note that I have repeatedly provided evidence that Keynesian zealots who are openly denigrating Austrian economics continually come onto the AS page to delete refs purely on the basis of notability or some other flimsy pretext and continually add Krugman's stuff sourced from blogs and websites such as Slate! Who is the "aggressor" here? WP editors clearly display pro-Keynesian bias, with Misessus and Skipseivert having been banned for what I (and others) consider outrageously flimsy grounds (with Keynesians simply ganging up to bully dissenting views off WP in a Stalinist-like purge).

When I see this happening, what do you expect me to do? Who is the "aggessor"? What should Skipsievert have done? Just walk away? Well, I've chosen not to walk away. That's probably a mistake, but as I said I'm insane enough to continue the fight and believe I have reasonable grounds to do so. I note that not one of my edits is unjustified and EVERY SINGLE ONE of my edits is supported by a ref (whether you consider it an appropriate ref or not is beside the point). So unlike other psychopaths, I'm not obsessed about putting forward MY VIEW of inflation, MY VIEW of Keynesian economics, MY VIEW of Austrian School etc - unlike Penny Seven, who is a psychopath but has been given a wide bearth on WP for some ungodly reason.

If the methodology behind a ban is unjustified, if I have provided clear unambiguous evidence of bias, if I see others who are OBJECTIVELY better editors banned and removed, if I see a pattern of Keynesian bias that is as clear as day and as black as night... I feel justifed in making MINOR EDITS on the fringes to clean up stuff. As a prime example, check out my recent edits on CFRB before they were reverted by cancerous Mastcell. Nothing was unreasonable - you asked for refs and I was giving them, improving the article. Then along comes brainless Keynesian robot LK and reverts even these minor edits. Then when you ignorantly and mistakenly mischaracterize MR's views, I try to correct these errors on the talk page - and EVEN THAT is deleted by Mastcell.

If you think this is reasonable behavior, then you will be continually amazed by my "madness".

If I "fail to note" this action or that action taken by "Keynesian zealots," there's a very simple reason for that -- IT IS IRRELEVANT to my simple point. I didn't raise the "trespass" issue in order to debate what biases you think color Wikipedia. Wikipedia is private property and you were informed that you are unwelcome to use it, which leads to my very simple point -- your actions here completely disrespect the notion of property rights that your words claim to hold dear. Also, your continued invocations of Mao or Guevarra are WHOLLY IRRELEVANT (and somewhat asanine), seeing as Wikipedia IS PRIVATE PROPERTY -- while you may like to think of yourself as a revolutionary, WP is NOT a government. Rothbard would agree that Jimbo Wales and his agents are free to run this place however they like without invasion.... indeed Rothbard would insist on that.

It seems that you have no problem living with being a hypocrite with every Wikipedia edit that you make about about (individualistic) libertarianism, but I still find it pretty ironic. Perhaps you haven't considered the example that you're setting. Meh.... BigK HeX (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP has the choice to close off the site to open content. My contributions (they are many) have stayed in only because they are objectively better than anyone else's. If they were not, they would have been deleted long ago. You are so narrow in your focus you cannot even see behind the lack of justification for the rules you are trying to apply. You talk of "hypocrisy"! WP's "hypocrisy" is laughable. Why ban anyone? I can understand obvious psychos being banned, who continually grafitti a page with stuff like "ALL KEYNESIANS ARE FREEMASONS WHO WANT TO ENSLAVE THE WORLD IN UNREPAYABLE DEBT!!!". Get them off WP. But if I have NEVER displayed this conduct (nor has Misessus or Skipsievert) why should we be banned AT ALL? If our edits are "bad" they will (eventually) be improved. Why the paranoia over our edits? That paranoia, that urge to ban editors who are positively contributing simply because you don't like their point of view IS CENSORSHIP. If WP is into censorship, then simply close off the site and stop the masquerade. If WP wants to be genuinely open source (which it SAYS is its "mission"), then why ban editors like Misessus and Skipsievert AT ALL when any "bad" edits can so easily be reverted? The only reason is that somone like LK sees their edits, doesn't like their point of view and wants to ensure they don't bob up again and make good edits on a page they haven't been monitoring. It's a lazy WP editor's way of ensuring his perspective is retained on "his" pages, without bothering to have to check each edit. That is the ONLY reason for blanket bans. We're talking past each other now, you have shown your true colors and I know we will have to agree to disagree on MR, on CFRB, on Keynes and on the true meaning of "hypocrisy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.44.59 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess there's no question in anyone's mind (probably not even yours) on whether you're demonstrating a blatant hypocrisy by trespassing on this private property. The only question is how much effort it takes for you to quell the cognitive dissonance from such inexcusable violations. BigK HeX (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: Can genuine "private property" exist in a world of monopoly fiat e-paper currencies produced by a monopoly govt and enforced down the barrel of a gun? Surely the govt can buy up any property it chooses (at the right price) and manipulate private property rights. I am reminded of a quote from Churchill: Churchill asked a distinguished lady whether she would sleep with him for $5 million. She started discussing terms. Churchill suddenly reduced the offer to $5. The woman replied "Just what kind of woman do you think I am?!" He replied "We've established what kind of woman you are. Now we're just haggling over the price." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.127.88 (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 January

Deliberately removing relevant, properly cited material from an article, as you have from “Austrian School” is considered a willful attempt to compromise Wikipedia. Even worse when this removal violates Wikipedia's policy on point-of-view. Persistence in such edits would result in a block. —SlamDiego_←T 23:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

First this ... now some sort of threat? You amuse me! BigK HeX (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I see a clear pattern here and here and here. And you said you were difficult to work out! Get real. I now know why you didn't want to comment on "Keynesian zealots". You are one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.53.143 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For you to toss around the label of "zealot" is beyond hilarious. In any case, I never said whether I am or am not difficult to "work out" ... only that reaching an accurate conclusion would likely challenge the capability you're showing us here. I'd guess that the short attention span, dogmatic perception, knack for conflation&confusion, and the boringly predictable anarcho-capitalist "you're one of us or you're a fervent satanic communist" mentality that I've seen you demonstrate in the past ~2 years make it highly unlikely that you will come to accurate conclusions on much of anything that touches upon political subjects.

By all means, continue to fill those pigeonholes with your presumptions.

But, for the record, I've found a lot of your edits to be interesting, though terribly imprecise (and clearly poorly-sourced). At a time when people lost patience with your antics, a civil discourse might have been a better approach for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Karmaisking&oldid=190612582 ... might have been an intersting discussion. Oh well. BigK HeX (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Me: "I've studied your edits and know exactly what your point of view is." Hex: "Hah. No doubt you've studied my edits even less thoroughly than monetary economics, and I have no doubt that your grasp of my point of view is even more tenuous." Then, when I show the bitter fruits of my labors by linking clear anti-Austrian edits (again and again and again), Hex keeps it lighthearted and states: 'In any case, I never said whether I am or am not difficult to "work out."'

Didn't you?

I suppose you're as talented at building strawmen, as you are with other errors in argumentation. NO. I did NOT state an opinion on whether I was "hard to work out."

And if you think your three links (1 and 2 and 3) reflect a "clear anti-Austrian bias," then your tunnel-vision is even narrower than I thought possible. BigK HeX (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never denied my "madness" (it's one of my sockppts after all) - but at least I'm consistent in my madness and, ironically, I'm actually one of the few "commentators" in the world to have accurately predicted the GFC exactly 12 months before it occurred. Arguably, using my "unreliable" Austrian refs, I produced the most accurate concise explanation of the GFC written 12 months prior to its occurrence. Given you know my edits from 2 years ago, I assume you know exactly what I'm talking about. Not bad for a madman. You, on the other hand ....

Try to keep your anti-Austrian bias as inconsistent as your talk page discussion, and you may make it a tad more difficult for others to work you out. Then again, given it's so obvious what your bias is, I doubt you'd be able to help yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.53.143 (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "madness" the codeword you use for "hypocrisy"? Probably part of your need to quell the cognitive dissonance brought on by your blatant disrespect of property rigths..... BigK HeX (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, not bad for a hypocrite then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.53.143 (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5